Hager defense fund about to hit 20K – make that 25K

Written By: - Date published: 12:09 pm, October 8th, 2014 - 77 comments
Categories: journalism, law - Tags: ,

The legal defense fund for Nicky Hager is about to hit $20,000 $25,000. Why not give a little?

77 comments on “Hager defense fund about to hit 20K – make that 25K ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. fisiani 1
    8 October 2014 at 12:15 pm

    Why does he even need a defence? He is not charged with anything. He is just a witness. Storm in a teacup. First world problem.

    • wekarawshark 1.1
      8 October 2014 at 12:29 pm

      So you could do without the things in your life necessary to make a living (car? computer? teh product you are working on? brain? oh wait, you don’t have that last one), for an indefinite period of time?

      You must also have a much higher degree of trust in the police than many of us. The content on the hardware should be confidential. Will it remain so?

      These are not difficult concepts to understand.

    • Kiwiri - Raided of the Last Shark 1.2
      8 October 2014 at 12:51 pm

      Why does he even need a defence?

      A defence against the raid? To get his belongings back?

      He is not charged with anything

      So why was he raided?

      He is just a witness

      So witnesses in NZ now are vulnerable to having their homes raided for 10 hours by 10 cops?

      • One Anonymous Bloke 1.2.1
        8 October 2014 at 2:02 pm

        Five cops, and yes. Funny how the number of people willing to be witnesses just dropped to zero, eh.

        It’s a masterstroke: no witnesses, no crime, go National!

    • fisiani 1.3
      8 October 2014 at 6:02 pm

      I know how to spell defence.

  2. Clean_power 2
    8 October 2014 at 12:34 pm

    But fisiani is correct. What problem are we trying to solve here?
    Mr Hager has not been charged with anything, so what is the purpose of the funds?

    • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1
      8 October 2014 at 12:44 pm

      To punish the police for their illegal actions in searching a journalist’s property to try and find their sources. To amplify your whinging and whining when the courts rule in Nicky’s favour.

      To emphasise your craven lickspittle hypocrisy when you fail to condemn the illegal raid like the Quisling you are.

      • TheContrarian 2.1.1
        8 October 2014 at 3:06 pm

        “..To punish the police for their illegal actions…”

        “…condemn the illegal raid..”

        It wasn’t illegal.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.1.1
          8 October 2014 at 3:11 pm

          In the context of the Law Society report to the UN describing recent legislative measures as fundamentally at odds with the rule of law, let’s see what the courts have to say about that shall we?

          • TheContrarian 2.1.1.1.1
            8 October 2014 at 3:14 pm

            “let’s see what the courts have to say about that shall we?”

            Given the court issued the search warrant, making it legal, why are you saying it was illegal? I don’t think it was right, but it wasn’t illegal.

              • TheContrarian …
                8 October 2014 at 3:23 pm

                AOB: “The raid was illegal”
                Me: “Actually it wasn’t illegal”
                AOB: “Let’s let the courts decide”
                Me: “The courts have already said it was legal”
                AOB: “Warrants have been issued illegally before”
                Me: “Let court decide if it was illegal”

                What’s next I wonder

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  8 October 2014 at 3:39 pm

                  Well, now I’ve schooled you in the fact that warrants can be successfully challenged, especially when their legality comes into question – as now – I consider my work here is done.

                  • TheContrarian …
                    8 October 2014 at 4:19 pm

                    Yes they can be challenged but until it has…the raid was completely legal so why don’t we wait until the courts decide it was illegal – like you suggested.

                    • Tracey aka Rawshark …
                      8 October 2014 at 4:28 pm

                      If a court determines the warrant was illegal, it would then be correct to say it was also illegal on october 08?

                    • TheContrarian …
                      8 October 2014 at 4:57 pm

                      Sure

                    • Tracey …
                      8 October 2014 at 5:40 pm

                      so what we know is there was a raid performed under a warrant signed by a judge….

                      not legal. not illegal.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      8 October 2014 at 5:44 pm

                      Not necessarily by a judge…

                      issuing officer means—
                      (a) a Judge:
                      (b) a person, such as a Justice of the Peace, Community Magistrate, Registrar, or Deputy Registrar, who is for the time being authorised to act as an issuing officer under section 108.

                    • TheContrarian …
                      8 October 2014 at 5:59 pm

                      That makes it legal

            • Murray Rawshark 2.1.1.1.1.2
              9 October 2014 at 3:25 am

              How do you know a court issued the warrant? Often JPs will issue them, and they’re usually so happy to be asked they’ll give a warrant for anything. To be fair, many judges aren’t much better.

    • RJL 2.2
      8 October 2014 at 12:51 pm

      Legal action is required to get his stuff back in a timely fashion.

      Legal action is required to challenge the legality of the search and seizure (and potentially prosecute police for illegal act); if Hager chooses to do so.

      Legal action will be required when Hager inevitably refuses to hand over decryption keys, etc.

      Legal action will be required to ensure (or at least attempt to ensure) that unrelated material seized (about different forthcoming books) is not leaked to interested parties such as GCSB/SIS while it is in police custody.

    • Kiwiri - Raided of the Last Shark 2.3
      8 October 2014 at 12:53 pm

      Mr Hager has not been charged with anything

      So the cops have raided Mr Hager who has not been charged with anything, and hence the cops have acted improperly?

      • wekarawshark 2.3.1
        8 October 2014 at 12:56 pm

        The police say Hager is a witness, not a suspect.

        • Kiwiri - Raided of the Last Shark 2.3.1.1
          8 October 2014 at 1:16 pm

          So witnesses in NZ can now expect the possibility of being raided by cops?!

          • One Anonymous Bloke 2.3.1.1.1
            8 October 2014 at 2:00 pm

            Yes – far better to refuse to speak to them at all.

            This is going to work out so well.

    • wekarawshark 2.4
      8 October 2014 at 12:54 pm

      Mr Clean, Have you read anything about this case in the last few days? Even just Hager’s statement? He will now have to go to court to get his possessions back, including projects he was working on not related to DP/Slater. Otherwise the police will just hold on to them for however long.

      He will also need to legally challenge the police’s right to look at the material (so far they have apparently just taken evidence, not accessed the data).

    • Paul Campbell 2.5
      8 October 2014 at 1:02 pm

      We all appreciate Nicky’s journalism his willingness to target those with power. The police have taken away the tools of his trade, his computers and the information in them – without them he is unable to make a living.

      If we want to see more excellent journalism from Nicky we need for him to get the tools he needs to do his job.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 2.5.1
        8 October 2014 at 1:09 pm

        I can’t see how they can be the tools of his trade if he’s sure there’s nothing on them that will compromise his sources.

        Either they’ve never been used in his work, or he’s gone to a lot of trouble to scrub them clean.

        • wekarawshark 2.5.1.1
          8 October 2014 at 1:15 pm

          or he practices hygiene as he goes and there was nothing there to identify Rawshark to start with.

          Tools of his trade: laptop; phone; documents that is working on currently (paper or electronic). I’m sure there are more.

          Haven’t heard if they took back up drives, but assume if they were in the house they did.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 2.5.1.1.1
            8 October 2014 at 1:28 pm

            I’m basing my argument on the fact that NH has stated there’s nothing there to compromise sources. That means the raw material is safe, not just the list of names. So are Hager’s notes and any finished material.

            Unless he’s naive enough to trust the delete key I guess.

            • wekarawshark 2.5.1.1.1.1
              8 October 2014 at 1:33 pm

              I don’t understand what you are saying, well I do, but I fail to see how it relates to the idea that the confiscation of his property affects his ability to do his job. Whether sources are compromised or not is a separate issue.

              You do realise that all the other projects he is working on have been confiscated too?

              If someone took my computer away, I might hold all the passwords in my head for my electronic life, but I still can’t get online until I go and buy another computer.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                8 October 2014 at 2:00 pm

                Then why did he say he was “prepared for a raid” if he doesn’t have a backup system?

                The (I hope temporary) loss of the hardware is nothing compared to the illegal intimidation. The purpose of the raid: to establish the identity of a source, again, this is a far greater hindrance than the hardware loss.

                • wekarawshark …
                  8 October 2014 at 4:38 pm

                  It’s an interesting theory based on much supposition. eg did they take papers that were nothing to do with Slatergate but that Hager doesn’t have copies of?

                  My reading was they took the household hardware, not just Hager’s too. So while I can see your point, I just don’t agree that because loss of one’s contacts list on one’s cell phone is trivial compared to the nation’s democracy that that means it won’t have an impact on the people affected in that household.

                  I had this conversation with an Apple tech recently who thought I was being extreme when I mentioned that I really should keep a back up of my computer at a different location because of fire or if someone broke in and stole my laptop they would probably steal my external hdd too. I think he thought backups were for internal hdd failures (go Apple!).

                  Maybe Hager can just go out and replace all the electronics immediately. Maybe he backs up everything in his life (which would make him unusual). Maybe he anticipated the police not just raiding but doing a wide sweep of his home. Or maybe not.

                  btw, if in this context I was giving information to Hager, or anyone, I would do so only on the condition that identifying data wasn’t kept electronically. That includes Cloud storage.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    8 October 2014 at 5:01 pm

                    I’m not really supposing very much: just saying that the chilling effect of police raids on journalists – carried out with the express intent of exposing sources – will hamper Hager’s work a lot more than the temporary loss of hardware.

                    • wekarawshark …
                      8 October 2014 at 5:14 pm

                      Sure but you originally said that the hardware and files weren’t work tools.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      8 October 2014 at 5:51 pm

                      Based on Hager’s assurances that they cannot compromise his sources, who could be compromised by raw data (if it existed on confiscated hardware) regardless of their identity being otherwise redacted – or files deleted.

                      Ergo, there is no raw data on the hardware, ergo, it is not work equipment, and Heaven help his sources on the tax haven book if the opposite is true.

        • Paul Campbell 2.5.1.2
          8 October 2014 at 1:15 pm

          I assume that if they’ve taken all his digital media then they’ve all his work on his next book.

          His job is not “protecting sources”, that’s just a sideline, his job is “investigative journalist”, that means collecting information, collating it, and writing about it – something you do with computers – the police have just taken all that and sealed it away from him, along with the computers he’s bought to work with that data – those are the tools of his trade

          • One Anonymous Bloke 2.5.1.2.1
            8 October 2014 at 1:23 pm

            Do you believe that raw information is of no use in identifying its source, whether their name is [redacted] or not?

            GPG, encrypted cloud storage, his network of colleagues and sources, are the tools of his trade more than any piece of hardware.

            When he says he was prepared for this I’m sure he means it, and I hope the Supreme Court gives the police a damn good hiding anyway.

            • wekarawshark 2.5.1.2.1.1
              8 October 2014 at 1:29 pm

              Are you suggesting that loss of his hardware and hardcopy and electronic files will have no impact on his ability to do his day job?

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                8 October 2014 at 1:43 pm

                Not exactly: the intimidation, the illegal harassment, they will impact on him far more than the loss of some replaceable hardware, especially if said hardware is nothing more than his and his family’s personal effects.

            • Paul Campbell 2.5.1.2.1.2
              8 October 2014 at 1:33 pm

              That’s not what I’m arguing, he’s put Dirty Politics to bed – the police are interfering with his next book by taking all his work product and the tools he needs to work on.

              I hope he uses good crypto and has backups, but that’s besides the point, if I was a carpenter and the cops took a dislike to me and came and took all my tools because I had witnessed a crime, or I was an independent photographer and they came and took all my cameras and all the photos I’d ever taken then I wouldn’t be able to go to work the next day without my tools either would I?

              • wekarawshark …
                8 October 2014 at 1:35 pm

                +1

                I’m not sure why we are having to explain this to be honest. I thought it was self-evident.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                8 October 2014 at 1:46 pm

                If all the work is in cloud storage (and/or with his lawyers), hardware can be replaced.

                As I said above, the intimidation and illegal harassment will do far more damage, especially as NH claims to have been prepared for such an eventuality.

                He’s brave, not stupid.

              • ando …
                8 October 2014 at 9:25 pm

                what do you mean he has put it to bed??? HOws this for your cap[reter analogy…you hit someone over the head with your hammer, of course the police are going to take your tools. Publishing some ones private Emails is morally reprehensible and potentially illegal. The hacking is a crime, he profited of the results of that crime…simple, he is a pussy to hide behind being a joulnalist, you generally refer to people who write books as authers

                • mickysavage …
                  8 October 2014 at 9:32 pm

                  Wow there is so much happening in your comment. But tell me, if Hager is being a “pussy” for hiding behind being a “joulnalist” then what does this make Cameron Slater? After all he hid behind being a “joulnalist” in his attempt to stop Matt Blomfield from finding out who stole his data …

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  9 October 2014 at 8:07 am

                  Publishing someone’s private emails is morally reprehensible and definitely illegal unless there is a strong public interest in doing so, which is why section 68 of the Evidence Act exists.

                  Please note that if you’re going to throw legal terms around and demand justice it helps to know what the law says, rather than what you would like it to say.

        • Tracey aka Rawshark 2.5.1.3
          8 October 2014 at 4:30 pm

          Really? A computer cant be a tool of the trade? Surely it is possible he has non rawshark info on tgere, surely to type up some work, to write lectures he needs his computer and associated devices

          • wekarawshark 2.5.1.3.1
            8 October 2014 at 4:39 pm

            I think OAB is arguing a rather abstract concept here.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 2.5.1.3.1.1
              8 October 2014 at 5:14 pm

              Perhaps so, it just seems self-evident to me: cops in search of sources, intimidating witnesses, do a lot more harm than losing hardware when software can so easily be encrypted and stored.

              A temporary inconvenience versus an entirely new rulebook.

              If they were after stolen property it would be different, but they aren’t. They are looking for that which they are expressly forbidden to seek at this location.

              Rawshark’s boasts of untraceability may or may not prove true. What of the average witness to organised crime? Will this make them more or less likely to come forward?

    • boldsirbrian 2.6
      8 October 2014 at 1:37 pm

      .
      @ Clean_power (2)

      What problem are we trying to solve here?
      Mr Hager has not been charged with anything, so what is the purpose of the funds?

      Hundreds of people have already shown that they are immediately aware of the purpose. They do not need to explain why they have given funds.

      Mr. Botany (B.)

    • Tracey aka Rawshark 2.7
      8 October 2014 at 4:26 pm

      To challenge the siezure of all his tools of trade so he can get them returned so he can earn a living. It really isnt rocket science. To do that requires an application to court and go up against the deep pockets of crown law and the police.

    • framu 2.8
      8 October 2014 at 4:28 pm

      ” What problem are we trying to solve here?”

      groan – the legal costs of getting his property back, unmolested and in a timely manner.

      Then maybe, just maybe he might also need to pay lawyers to try and see that justice has been done regarding what he sees as an unjustified raid on his property and intimidation of his family

      the police drag that side of things out for as long as they can, after all they can use our tax dollars to do it

      do people seriously not understand that the police can and do employ more than the courts on those they dont like?

      time and cost are two of the greatest weapons once the lawyers get involved

      • greywarshark 2.8.1
        8 October 2014 at 4:41 pm

        I think clean power is dirty power a trole. His naive questions are disingenuous. DNFTT

    • Rodel 2.9
      8 October 2014 at 7:59 pm

      F & CP-Please say something, preferably something of some substance.

      Stop asking pointless trolely meaningless questions designed to stir- They don’t stir anyone and they achieve nothing.

      Gawd! you guys don’t realize how thick and ineffectual you sound. You really don’t.But then you’re right wingers…..I yearn for a good debate though…….sigh!

  3. YeahSure 3
    8 October 2014 at 12:38 pm

    First world problem? More like banana-republic problem.

  4. Elise 4
    8 October 2014 at 12:44 pm

    Hager is not charged with anything himself but he will fight in court so that he and future journalists get to protect their sources. It’s important for the police to investigate the hacker but it’s also important that they not shake down journalists for that information without having anything concrete first.

    Journalists protecting sources is essential in a democracy. Otherwise, there would never be any whistleblowing as those people would not trust journalists to keep their identities safe. Imagine if Snowden never trusted Greenwald with the info, we would never know about NSA activities and the resulting reforms of NSA powers in USA would never have happened.

    Hager’s legal fight is also important from a non-journalistic sense too. He’s a witness and yet the police spent 10 hours taking his things. If he wins his fight, it would mean that if you are ever a witness to a crime, the police won’t be able to take your things so easily cos there would be legal precedent barring them from doing so.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 4.1
      8 October 2014 at 12:45 pm

      …it’s also important that they not shake down journalists for that information ever again FIFY

    • Rodel 4.2
      8 October 2014 at 7:52 pm

      Correct me if I’m wrong but I have been told that only priests and maybe lawyers have the right to legal confidentiality about their ‘customers’ ( which to my mind is a travesty).
      Is this correct?
      Others such as doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists, or journalists have no legal right to confidentiality. Perhaps someone schooled in law can answer myquestion.

  5. wekarawshark 5
    8 October 2014 at 1:01 pm

    I’m thinking we should set up some #HagerRaid bingo. Seems like the appropriate match for the level of trole intelligence the past few days.

  6. RedBaronCV 6
    8 October 2014 at 8:38 pm

    As a complete aside, I assume that Nicky’s public engagements while he was away from home where well known. My question is, did the raid take place within the time frame when he could be assumed to be speaking or travelling to the event.

    And if not how did the cops know how long he was going to be absent from home. Are they spying on him in other ways to see who he is meeting and talking to. Is this raid just an isolated instance or part of greater surveillance.

    • Murray Rawshark 6.1
      9 October 2014 at 3:45 am

      From past experience, they like searching homes when the suspect (witness, yeah right) is not there. It causes more mental anguish, not knowing what they’ve done until you get back. You’re also not there to call a lawyer and put a stop to it.

      • RedBaronCV 6.1.1
        9 October 2014 at 9:18 pm

        Completely understand MR. I was just wondering about the time line. Did the police appear to know he was going to be away for the two days and if so how? Searching Airnz records, following him, phoning the ‘hood, surveillance, something else, anything legal??

  7. lurgee 7
    8 October 2014 at 8:56 pm

    Its quite awesome to see the fund pushing up to 30K. The Powers That Be should take note. There is going to be an almighty fight. Do they think it is worth it? And maybe they will think twice, next time.

    • lprent 7.1
      9 October 2014 at 12:05 am

      Especially if there is more than enough money to actually win. Then he can afford to start taking individual policemen into civil court and seeking damages (without the state resources and police ‘union’ behind them).

  8. Eralc 8
    8 October 2014 at 9:34 pm

    Why does he need a defence fund when he’s only a witness?

    • lprent 8.1
      9 October 2014 at 12:01 am

      Because he has to get the gear back that the police have stolen from him.

      You think that this is going to be cheap. It usually cost thousands of dollars to file anything at the court. You will have to file a lot to drag the police into court until they are forced by real judges to admit that they broke the law (again)

      Are you really that stupid and naive?

  9. Reddelusion 9
    8 October 2014 at 11:03 pm

    Defending Hagar on the basis that Cameron slater did it is hardly a defense, unless your a child or your cognitive development stopped at 8 years old as it did for one annoying bloke

    • lprent 9.1
      8 October 2014 at 11:50 pm

      Defending Hagar on the basis that Cameron slater did it is hardly a defense…

      Of course not.

      However if the police follow one procedure when doing a case against Cameron Slater and follow a completely procedure when doing a case against someone who has a go at Cameron Slater, when the cases are virtually identical at a legal level – doesn’t that make you concerned.

      How did your cognitive excellence manage to miss that pertinent fact?

      Could it be that you are simply a hypocritical fuckwit?

      And why in your long life have you never realised that?

      Please read the frigging post and engage your brain so you don’t look like such a moran.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 9.2
      9 October 2014 at 8:10 am

      Slater didn’t do it: there was no public interest in his publication of material based on Blomfield’s stolen property. There is public interest in Hager’s publication of material based on Slater’s hacked messages.

      These facts elude you?

  10. wekarawshark 10
    8 October 2014 at 11:23 pm

    $32,000